This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure what you mean by "an afterthought or a footnote" but 19th and early 20th century U.S. politics are all about brass-tacks, "jobs-for-the-boys" style patronage. As the high point, I'd point to maybe the various landgrant laws from the mid-1800's on, just because of the massive scale of the uplift caused thereby.
Well, I suppose on this point we’re looking to emphasize two separate things. I’ve always viewed the notion of “small government” as a retreat from the necessity of politics, by people who lack the gift or soft touch for being able to wield it. It’s more than just a trade off that we pay as an ode to the ideal of liberty.
The lack of our system to keep pace with the rapid changes of the modern world, are going to be one of the things that ultimately do us in. You can see aspects of this at work in contemporary events as well.
Look at Biden’s bid for re-election. It’s likely to shape up as another contest between he and Trump. And there’s an interesting political contrast between someone like Trump and what’s been going on with Macron and the protests in France, going back years now. If you look back to when Trump got elected, almost no western liberal would’ve disagreed that he was a disaster for the US, and that someone like Macron getting elected was a success. But if you come all the way up to today, the exact ‘opposite’ has been proven true.
The roots of people’s frustration with Macron ultimately had to do with him wanting to implement some pretty sound macroeconomic reforms. One thing he wanted to do was increase the diesel tax, which would’ve reduced the French budget deficit and helped lower CO2 emissions. Then he’d be in a stronger fiscal position, and that would increase confidence and investment in France so that the bottom half of the society could benefit. But the French people didn’t want to tolerate short term pain for long term gain, so it didn’t happen. But the problem is for the people to benefit, they ‘have’ to trust their leader at times. And Macron lost the trust of that half of the population.
But with Trump, he had that trust and confidence of the bottom 50%. Segmented by racial lines of course, but the point remains. When Trump attacked the political establishment, he was venting the anger of that half of the population who felt ignored and cast by the wayside. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand. It really is that straightforward. And so when he was elected, it had a cathartic effect on the bottom half, in a way you didn’t experience protests in D.C. The average income of Americans has stagnated and declined over the course of the last 40 years, quite noticeably. The ‘why’ of that is almost entirely misunderstood by the general population, and Americans do have a right to be very angry, but in our society, part of the problem is that we too strongly emphasize the principle of liberty over addressing social and economic inequalities. This is where I argue that we don’t understand the art of governance. There was a time where that used to be true, but it’s part of a history that’s been lost to us.
The problem with western liberalism, is that they tend to believe that as long as elections take place, and people can vote freely and equally, that ‘alone’ is sufficient for social stability. And it isn’t. The ‘government’ also needs an active and responsible hand in ‘raising’ the quality and standard of living among the population. China has always understood this. Britain has almost always understood this. Germany has understood this. But believing in the above fiction entails the belief that your own economic woes and failings owe to personal incompetence, and not broader social conditions. And when liberals want to emphasize the latter part of that, I 100% agree with them. But they’re going about it ‘entirely’ the wrong way.
Trump’s policies of running larger deficits in relatively good times, is going to bring pain later, while Macron’s policies would’ve ameliorated some inequality woes, had French people simply remained patient. But they didn’t. And so where Trump is concerned, liberals messed up when they focused on too much of Trump himself. His personality, narcissism, etc. if they wanted to defeat Trump decisively, they need to regain the trust of voters. And that involves taking a stance against the status quo that blocks meaningful reform from taking place. They can either feel good, being butthurt over Trump the man, or they can attack the causes that contributed to him getting elected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link